Saturday, January 13, 2007

It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin’s celebrated “On the Origin of Species,” yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed. That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus. The most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that evolution is finished as proposed by the anti-Darwinian Robert Broom and the Darwinian Julian Huxley, curiously the same man who coined the term “the modern synthesis.” (Davison, 2004). Pierre Grasse suggested the same.

“Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?” (Grasse, 1977, page 71).

I realize that some would not agree with us that evolution is finished, but I am now convinced that it is. How then is it possible for an hypothesis to survive without verification? Both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics collapsed when controlled experiment demonstrated them to be without foundation. Darwinism also has failed to survive the acid test of experimental verification. Why then has it persisted?

The reason for this paradox is the subject of this brief essay. It is, as my title indicates, because Darwinism is a delusion. The delusion is that evolution (phylogeny) has proceeded as the result of external causes which can be identified and experimentally manipulated. In my opinion that is impossible because such causes do not now and never did exist. They also do not exist for ontogeny, the development of the individual from the egg. Ontogeny and phylogeny are manifestations of the same reproductive continuum. Since only ontogeny remains, we must look to it as a model evolution. Does not ontogeny proceed entirely on the basis of contained information present in the fertilized egg? Of course it does. The only role for exogenous factors is to provide the necessary conditions for development to take place. For the amphibian fertilized egg all that is required is a freshwater environment at a suitable temperature. In a very real sense that is all that is required for the development of a mammal. I can say that because the amniotic fluid in which the mammalian embryo is bathed is very low in dissolved salts, like the ancestral environment in which our amphibian predecessors developed. Even the crab-eating frog of India, which dives into the surf to capture its prey, must go inland to fresh-water ponds in order to reproduce. Thus the mammalian womb retains the properties of the environment in which our ancestors developed in the past as their relatives still do today. This is true also of the amniotic fluid surrounding the bird or reptile embryo. It too is much lower in salts than the blood or tissue fluids, betraying their fresh-water ancestry as well.

In every instance when we look for a role for the environment as a guide to evolutionary change we encounter a blank wall. The most that can be documented is that of acting as a stimulus for a potential already present. That includes the capacity to become resistant to insecticides and all other phasic responses which, unlike evolution, have proven to be reversible. Mendelian allelic mutations are also reversible and accordingly have played no significant role in evolution either. This realization has led me to postulate the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) as the only reasonable alternative for the formation of species as well as any of the higher taxonomic categories (Davison, 2005).

Coupled with the Darwinian delusion is the incapacity of certain ideologies to accept the implications of a predetermined evolution. Such a scenario demands one or more past intelligences far beyond our present capacity to comprehend. Such concepts are anathema to the atheist Darwinian perspective. The Darwinians have traditionally pretended that they had no critics. It is evident in the references and citations that are missing from the writings of their primary spokespersons, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Stephen Jay Gould and most recently Richard Dawkins.

Otto Schindewolf recognized the failure of the experimental approach to phylogeny more than a half century ago. He too has been ignored but not by this investigator.

“Many recent authors have spoken of experimental evolution; there is no such thing, Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way.” Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, italics his emphasis, bold my emphasis.

97 comments:

VMartin
said...

As I mentioned before IMHO Charles University Prague seems to be overcrowded with people who attacks darwinism. Yesterday I saw new book (published 2006) from one of them in the bookstore. I didnot buy it - anyway author somehow support darwinism - but his ideas seem to be in accordance with John Davison conclusions. Author claimed that from extant species no one of them is able of further evolution.

AlanThanks for reprinting my essay but did you have to put it all in a single paragraph?

vmartin

Roberr Broom over 50 years ago claimed that no present species would ever be able to produce anything very different. In other words, creative evolution was finished. Both Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse claimed the same also long ago

Some folks are slow learners. I am not one of them.

"The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."anonymous

Sorry about that, John. In the "edit" screen it displays correctly. All the other threads have the same problem. Something to do with when I accidentally crashed the site, I guess. When I reloaded the template, the posts all got mangled in the same way - no line breaks. I don't know how to fix it, sorry.

David Springer, The Yellow Rose of Texas, has come up with the following jewel as I recently discovered over at the Welsberry's Darwinian Alamo.

"Only some specific interpretation of specific religious revelation argues against common ancestry."

Nothing could be further from the truth. No one, not even the Yellow Rose of Texas, the biggest bully in the intenet, has any idea how many times life was created, where it was created, when it was created or how it was created. To claim a single origin of life is to assume it was an accident and that intinsic in a single creation was the protential to produce every living creature that ever lived. In other words Springer is endorsing the Darwinian position! What a thigh-slapper that one is.

The Darwinians have traditionally pretended that they had no critics. It is evident in the references and citations that are missing from the writings of their primary spokespersons, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Stephen Jay Gould and most recently Richard Dawkins.

Some might see this as projection, John, as you have earned yourself a reputation for not responding to queries about your hypothesis.

I am re-reading "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins at the moment, and quite a few passages address your ideas. He certainly agrees with you that sexual reproduction is normally conservative. I'll see if I can find a few relevant quotes.

Grassé, Schindewolfe, Bateson all get a mention, so Dawkins is not ignoring them.

I established a new user name and password with Google but it doesn't work so I guess I will just have to assume a variable identity. I might as well be anonymous anyway as no one pays any attention to me or my sources.

AlanWho is this foul-mouthed creep Louis that is using the fm word over at the Alamo? Don't you Darwimps have any self respect whatsoever? You keep that crap up and you will get yourself shut down by the FCC.

Darwimps are all cowards. They all hang out together over at After the Pub Closes where they play "oneupmanship" with one another to see who can be the biggest damn fool. It is gloriously revealing don't you think?

I am confident that sooner or later they will expose themselves. They always do. Be patient.

You were right on a few messagea back when you described the Darwimps as being hypnotized. Gould, Mayr and now Dawkins, compulsive atheists all, have mesemerized them with several linear meters of library shelving, not one word of which ever had anything whatsoever to do with creative progressive, ascending irreversible organic evolution.

There is no doubt relation between darwinism and marxism. Both theories are outdated naturalistic beliefs from midst 19. century with catastrophical outcomes for mankind. Yet for hard-core atheists they are the only phantasies they have to support their views. They have nothing better and that is why they are so nervous when discussing it.

Please stop blocking me from reading and responding and don't deny it. Only you control the block sign.

Doppleganger, for those of you who don't know the man with a thousand aliases, is Scott L. Page whom I have come to call Pott L. Scage. Hw has been banned 5 times from ARN alone each time with a new alias. I have been banned only once from ARN, twice from Uncommon Descent, once from Panda's Thumb, once form Pharyngula, twice from EvC and on an and on, etc, etc. But five times from the same forum even I can't match!

Incidentally Alan, Kazmer Ujvarosy has just introduced my essay "Julan Huxlet's Confession" under his title - "Is Evolution finished?" at the January 17 edition of American Chronicle. Curiously the title "Is Evolution finished?" is the title of my 2004 paper published in Rivista di Biologia. Why don't you introduce that one as a thread here also so you can allow others but not myself to to discuss it.

Darwimpians don't "discuss" anything any more. All they do is knee-jerk react to any deviation from the "one true faith" -Darwimpianism. Pott L. Scage's recent outburst is typical Darwimpianism. He offers nothing but insult. Having never contributed anything of substance himself, all he can do is lash out and by so doing expose himself as a congenital, "prescribed" Darwimp.

What I mean is that in geological/cosmological time we might experience evolution produce many species to fill different niches in the environment. After a certain time most niches would be filled and evolution would aparently slow down.

Then we have something happen that completely changes the environment and so rapid changes occur producing new species to fill gaps.

You are talking about 150-200 years, whereas evolution occurs over a vastly different timescale (normally).

The fact that creatures have "evolved" to exploit niches that are entirely man-made is telling.

Damn, I should have asked if you are answering questions on this thread before spending time in responding.

Incidentally, Larry Moran has now banned this computer from viewing the proceedings of his precious Sandwalk. I am crushed of course just as I am when I am denied viewing ARN and Dawkins' fan club or when I am banned from posting at such citadels of evolutionary enlightenment as Uncommon Descent, Telic Thoughts, Pharyngula, EvC and of course that last great bastion of Darwimpian mysticism - Panda's Dislocated Pollex also known as Esley Welsberry's Alamo. I must be doing something right.

Edgar Bergen said... Alan deliberately and maliciously blocked my reponse to Stephen Eliott as I have described over at "brainstorms". And he calls this a Neutral Venue? Who does he think he is kidding?

Not for a moment. It has happened before too many times. I just exposed the whole shabby business over at "brainstorms" along with naming several other pathetic blogs and forums that engage in the same cowardly practice.

SOCKITTOME!

I love it so!

Now be a good little Darwimp and go back to the Alamo and mention my name. You haven't got the guts!

Not for a moment. It has happened before too many times. I just exposed the whole shabby business over at "brainstorms" along with naming several other pathetic blogs and forums that engage in the same cowardly practice.

SOCKITTOME!

I love it so!

Now be a good little Darwimp and go back to the Alamo and mention my name. You haven't got the guts!

John,Why do you think that Alan is blocking you in any way when some of your posts are getting through.

Quite often my posts take a few atempts to get on the board due to a formatting error or forgetting to confirm the "word" or a number of other reasons. You automatically assign any posting problems to censorship. You have a history of doing this.

JAD, you know your computer skills are limited, look for the more obvious reasons for a technical hitch before screaming "CONSPIRACY!" That tactic makes you look bad.

What's with the "Stephen Elliott, evolutionist extraordiaire-" claim? I find it kind of flattering TBH, but I am not worthy of the title.

Then there is this,"Now be a good little Darwimp and go back to the Alamo and mention my name. You haven't got the guts!"

Now I am not going to go to ATBC and post your claims for you. What would be the point? I have lost the inclination JAD. Blame it on my lack of courage if you wish, I don't care. The real reason (but I doubt you will accept this) is down to your behaviour on damn near every forum I have seen you post on.

Can I now take it that you will not be answering my original question? That is OK JAD, it is your choice.

Let me tell you a story (although I doubt you wil care, but I am an optimist). The reason I ended up on these sites and in this debate is through the book "the case for a creator" by Lee Strobel.

He (through interviews with "scientists") was making a claim for scientific evidence for God's existense. So I did as recommended and followed the evidence. That got me to PT. What did I find there? Real scientists had already countered every single argument years before that book was published and yet no mention whatsoever of this was mentioned in the book.

When I tried to argue with people, some folks on the evolutionary side actually bothered to explain things (don't get me wrong, the majority just dissed me and I don't blame them. I was using arguments they had already seen lots of times). Yet not a single IDist ever extended me that curtesy. It is bleeding obvious why the reason for that is now but at the time I was "cluless".

Eventually it sunk in. The guys on the evolution "side" had evidence and where happy to use it. The ID "side" has handwaving and lies.

My conclusion? I was suckered by the ID PR campaign.

Then there is you. Guess which side you most resemble to me? Oh, I know you are no ID movement supporter ATM. I am talking about behaviour rather than intent.

So there you go JAD. I predict that you will now call me some names while still refusing to answer my questions. Go ahead. If that is what amuses you then fill your boots with it, just don't expect me to be a messenger boy for you, when you have no message.

The only names I will all you are that you are an uneducated, ignorant, mouthy bufoon who knows, by his own admission, absolutely nothing about organic evolution. You have no more business commenting about evolution than do any of the other inmates over at ATBC. They are nothing but a bunch of ill informed, "groupthinking" gossips not one of whom has ever published a word concerning the "mechanism" of organic evolution. It is only the "mechanism" of a long past evolution that has ever been in question and the Darwinian proposals never had anything whatsoever to do with it, absolutely nothing.

Otherwise you are just one more loser who insists on seeing his idiotic comments in the ephemeral print of a mindless, meaningless blog such as this one and ATBC. You are pathetic, all of you.

I recommend you read my comments about your transparent tactics over at "brainstorms." You can be confident I will continue to expose you and others like you for as long as I am able. I hope Martin will as well.

Alan Fox said... I predict that you will now call me some names while still refusing to answer my questions.

Bang on with the prediction, Stephen.

Not much of a prediction Alan. Have you ever seen JAD behave in any other way?

You know Alan, JAD is probably serious about you trying to gag him. It is very likely that he truly believes it.

JAD gives the apearance of no longer being able to learn. I have seen many of his posts and internet behaviour since I got interested in the ID/Evo malarky and JAD is the most consistent person I have ever witnessed. His computer skills are so bad that he actually considers Dave Scot to be a real computer genius.

JAD had a legion of problems when he atempted to run his own blog and yet never for a minute seems to consider his difficulties in posting here could be due to his own mistakes. I can remember him making these same claims (that he is making against you) over on PT.

Almost inumerable explanations about why he was having difficulties got ignored while he made wild-assed paranoid claims.

More flagrant lies right and left from Stephen Elliott. On my own blogs I never found it necessary to block a single comment or ban a single contributor. I didn't even know how. I didn't have to engage in such practices in order to expose my adversaries. They did it all by themselves just as you continue to do right now. You are trash Elliott, a lying illiterate pig. So are all your shabby gossiping cronies over at After The Pub Closes. There is not a real scientist in the whole rotten lot of you.

There is absolutely no question that Alan Fox has been mnaking it difficult for me and also Martin to post here. Springer even claimed as much and he is no friend of mine. He is the biggest deleter and banner in history.

The pattern has been crystal clear. I would be unable to post until I bitched about it at "brainstorms" and bingo, I could post again for a short period. Then the pattern would repeat. This has been going on ever since Fox opened his "Neutral Venue." What a joke that is!

I have never had to bitch even about being banned. Hell, I regard it as a tribute. Intellectual garbage collectors always ban their critics. That is their only defence agaist the truth. It seems Alan Fox hasn't even got the common sense to ban me. Either that or maybe, like yourself, he is just a "prescribed" monumentally ignorant masochist.

Incidentally, after a very brief appearance I am now banned at Telic Thoughts as well.

I hope you realize that if you ban Martin and I that your "Neutral Venue" is dead in the water. We are your only hope. Encouraging "prescribed" losers like Pott L, Scage and Ephen Stelliott is a serious strategic error on you part if you expect your little "experiment" to amount to a hill of beans. Those two are completely out of touch with the history of evolutionary science as well as the transparent idiocy of the neoDarwinian paradigm. The Darwinian fantasy is no longer acceptable to any rational observer of molecular biology and a remarkably complete fossil record. It has become the laughing stock of contemporary biology.

And so you have painted yourself into a corner from which I see no escape unless you undergo a sincere and profound metamorphosis.

Being basically a decent man, I am going to give you one more opportunity to save your hide. Like Donald Trump I am going to give you a "second chance."

You must recant and deny any further allegiance to Darwinian mythology and embrace the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis with publicly declared enthusiasm as the only conceivable alternative to the biggest hoax in the history of science. Surely this is not asking too much is it?

This is now my very last offer to save you from yourself. I strongly recommend that you give it serious consideration. If you refuse and remain in your present intellectual posture, you can be absolutely certain that, like the IRS, I will pursue you and all others like you relentlessly and make your life so miserable that you will wish that you never heard of John A. Davison. Is that perfectly clear?

You are priceless. As you yourself have pointed out there is no faclity in "Blogger" for blocking posters that I am aware of. As I have said before, I have never blocked you, I am not blocking you, I will never block you

You must know this, for example as when happily deleting comments by the dozen from your own blogs, (for which I have much documentary evidence as I saved a lot of your material before you doctored it)

You must have quite an interesting story to tell, with your initial enthusiasm for ID and your subsequent disillusionment. I would be very pleased to start a thread, if you felt motivated to write a piece on your experiences, and I am sure quite a few of us would find it intersting.

Stephen Elliot presented his sagacity on ATBC phorum when using his brilliant "gnosis" came to the conclusion:I also believe JAD and VMartin to be the same person but I don't see conclusive proof yet.

As you see he has no proof. Yet his precious reason shed light not only on the question who I am. His infallible intuition led him to everlasting adherence to "darwinistic science" too. He do not bother with logic and details at all - his view is this one:

Then we have something happen that completely changes the environment and so rapid changes occur producing new species to fill gaps.

So "something happen" that completely changes environment (perhaps trees started to grow upwards with green leaves instead with needles? or vice versa?) and behold! - new species occured! Btw I would reccomend Elliot before he starts again edify how species occured to "fill gaps" to fill exceptional gaps in his own skull first.

Hi Martin!Neither one of these guys has enough sense to come in out of the rain.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

As for new species, I have prepeatedly asked for poof of ANY new species arising in historical times or a single new genus in the last two million years. They keep hollering about how I change the bar on them when they come up with a presumed example. I even use Dobzhansky's definition of what a species is and he remained a devout Darwinian to the end of his life even though he, more that anyone else, proved with controlled experimemnts that artificial selection is impotent as a speciation device.

Here for about the thousandth time is Dobzhansky's definition of species. Two forms will be considered the same species if their hybrid proves to be fertile.You notice this has nothing to do with whether they WANT to hybridize or not or whether they even choose to mate. It depends only on what happens when the sperm of one form is used to fertilze the eggs of the second form and vice versa. That is ALL that Dobzhnnaky's definition requires. In other words his is a physiologiocal definition which is completely unambiguous. So guess what. Did the Darwinians test his hypthesis with Darwin's precious finches? Absolutely not. I believe they stll haven't. The Grant's have neverthelss made it perfectly obvious from field observations that Darwin's finches are all one species whose naturally occurring hybrids are genetically not only fertile but fit. The characteristics of the various Galapagos "species" are phasic and vary with the climate which determines the vegetation on which the birds feed. Any characteristic which is freely reversible is not an evolutionary event.

In other words nothing in Mendelian genetics has any evolutionary significance whatsoever because Mendelian alleles by definition represent reversible states.

William Bateson was the first to realize this as I demonstrated in my Manifesto and my published papers. So later did Grasse which I have also fully documented. So did Punnett and Berg. To a Darwinian any genetic change is evolution.

The simple fact is that there is not a shred of experimentally verifiable evidence that progressive evolution is any longer in progress anywhere on the surface of this planet.What do think I mean when I sign off with -

VMartin, the two quote of mine that you cited.Yes, I did consider that yourself and JAD where the same person. I am doubtfull now as it would require a computing expertese beyond anything JAD has been able to demonstrate. I am however still suspicious of you as your writing style changes inconsistently.

Your other quote of me was intended to be part of a question rather than an assertion. My full question (with the part you quoted) is on this thread.

JAD, I really do not know how to respond to you. But I will try. As you point out (so very elequently) I am no expert of evolution. Why do I need to be? My claim was that I distinguished between people who would engage and show rational explanations and people who just ranted, raved and waved hands.

Alan, don't make a thread for me. It would be pointless. Just do the experiment, ask a few questions on evolutionary and ID blogs and see who answers with evidence. You will find it pretty damn conclusive.

JAD again, why do you consider me to be a liar? I do not like it, but in your case you can be forgiven. Your grasp on reallity seems to be so tenuous that getting angry with you would be silly.

PS. I am having difficulty posting this JAD. First atempt has failed. Got the "word" wrong. You only see that if you scroll down the comment box and check to se if it posted. hint hint

You are both liars and bufoons. Neither of you has any familiarity with the history of evolutionary science and you are both chronic denizens of the most degenerate forum in cyberspace, Panda's Thumb, named in honor of Gephen J. Stould, an anally compulsive atheist mystic who, along with Mernst Ayr and Dichard Rawkins comprise what I have come to call the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science. Not one of these "prescribed," congenital atheists has ever contributed an iota to our understanding of the great mystery of either ontogeny or phylogeny. Quite the contrary, they have been instrumental in retarding that progress by overloading the library shelves with book after mindless book of pure science fiction based on an unsubstantiated primary assumption for which no evidence has ever existed. That assumption is that evolution had an external cause which could be manipulated under controlled conditions to produce evolutionary progress. Such a mechanism has never been identified for the simple reason that it never existed.

The really pathetic aspect of all this is that there is absolutley no point in my attempting to convince you of this because you were born with the inability to even perceive such an obvious reality. You Darwinians, without exception, are congenital, natural born, irreversible, "prescribed" atheists and there is absolutely nothing that can be done for you.

Like everything else in the universe, you were "determined" at conception to become what you now are, hopeless, feckless ideologues, just as Einstein reminded us when I was a mere child of four.

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their THINKING, FEELING, AND ACTING ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."Statement to the Spinoza Society of America, September 22, 1932, my emphasis.

Stephen Elliot latest logical excercise:Yes, I did consider that yourself and JAD where the same person. I am doubtfull now as it would require a computing expertese beyond anything JAD has been able to demonstrate.

In other words - if John would have computing expertese it would be clear proof that he and I are the same person.

I'll tell you - you are ignorant not only in biology and mimicry but on internet connection and basic logic as well.

Alan, don't make a thread for me. It would be pointless. Just do the experiment, ask a few questions on evolutionary and ID blogs and see who answers with evidence. You will find it pretty damn conclusive.

No worries, I just thought your "road to Damascus" story would have been interesting. I don't need convincing about the weight of evidence with regard to "Intelligent Design", but I would love to hear from someone who was initially swayed by their PR.

n other words - if John would have computing expertese it would be clear proof that he and I are the same person.

I'll tell you - you are ignorant not only in biology and mimicry but on internet connection and basic logic as well.

Well, VMartin, your English is coming along nicely. You can now sneer like a native. If you seriously want to challenge your ban at AtBC, if you will agree to provide a little evidence, I will lobby on your behalf. Or does it suit your vanity to claim martyrdom instead?

I see I can post again. What makes you think that Martin would ever dirty his hands with your stupid AtBC? I wouldn't and I am sure he wouldn't either. If you would let him speak I am sure he would support what I just said you nasty little hypocrite. I won't ever again dirty my hands at any blog anywhere that has banned me even once not to mention more than once like Dembski's Uncommon Descent and EvC and God only knows how many others. I can't keep track of them all.

I came to your masochistic little experiment to expose you as the degenerate you really are and you continue to prove I am absolutely right about you and all your cronies both here and elsewhere. Martin and I make fools of you creeps and you are so out of touch with reality that you don't even recognize it.

I now request that you introduce another of my papers here. This one also was just published at American Chronicle. It is "Julian Huxley's Confession" and you can copy it from either "brainstorms" or Uncommon Descent where Springer, the biggest bully in cyberdom has sequestered it along with all my other papers where neither I nor anyone else can further comment on it. Put it here where I can deal with those stupid enough to challenge Huxley's own words. You haven't got the guts! You are unbelievably stupid and -

Alan Fox said.*No worries, I just thought your "road to Damascus" story would have been interesting. I don't need convincing about the weight of evidence with regard to "Intelligent Design", but I would love to hear from someone who was initially swayed by their PR."

I guess it is fairly simple to answer that. There is something in my makeup that wants to believe in a God and ultimate purpose.

This may or may not come from early teachings or an inborn desire, I do not know.

But WRT ID. At first I thought that science had found proof of God. The particular book was "the case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.I did what was asked and followed the evidence. The rest is that I now consider creationists liars.

I haven't yet given up hope that there is a God and I might just get to speak to my father again. But it aint science and my respect for religious apologetics has been greatly decreased. I really do dislike liars and ID has plenty of them.

IF God exists (something I am not certain of) I doubt God would like these people.

Oh and VMartin and JAD,I do not trust them one bit. They make claims but seem unable to back them up with any reasonable argument.

I am not talking about expert points here as I am unqualified to say. But when they make a general claim yet refuse to back it up it makes me skeptical about their expert expertese.

Both JAD and VMartin have made charachter claims about me. Yet when questioned seem to fail to back-up their assertions. If you dissagree with that last statement Alan (on any point) tell me where and I will explain in more detail.

God or Gods don't have to exist to explain an evolution which is no longer going on. One or more such forces MUST have once existed and that is all that is required to explain a phenomenon no longer in operation. That was the whole thrust of my brief stay at Dickie Dawkins' little fan club where my thread -

"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed"

produced over 60,000 views in a very few days. Of course, as is typical with my contributions, it ended with summary bannishment and I still am not allowed to view that hideous little blog. Like this one it is an intellectual disaster!

I love it so!

Pierre Grasse had independently reached a very similar conclusion -

"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis

Note that Grasse capitalized He and Him suggesting a Judeo-Christian perspective.

Mine is more a Spinoza-Einstein posture in which the postulate of more than one God seems more appropriate as an explanation of what we see around us. I also join with Einstein in avoiding personalization of a supernatural which, in my opinion, cannot be denied. The simple truth is that no one has any idea about God whatsoever. Nevertheless, a past existence of such entities cannot be dismissed by any objective mind. Of course the Darwinian mind is not and never has been objective. Darwinians are, by definition, "prescribed" atheists. It is as simple as that.

Nietzche was in my view right on with his "God is dead." That implies a past existence and that is all that is necessary.

Now please introduce my Huxley paper if you expect to maintain any semblance of a "neutral venue."

Doppleganger, for those of you who don't know the man with a thousand aliases, is Scott L. Page whom I have come to call Pott L. Scage. Hw has been banned 5 times from ARN alone each time with a new alias.

False.

I have been banned only once from ARN, twice from Uncommon Descent, once from Panda's Thumb, once form Pharyngula, twice from EvC and on an and on, etc, etc. But five times from the same forum even I can't match!

And you are prouid of your bannings at 3-5 times as many places as I have been banned?

There is a distinct difference in the reasons for our respective bannings - you are banned for, without reason, without rationale, without provocation, engaging in insult-fests and refusing to discuss anything of substance. You rewfer only to you self-referential, hero-worship laden jokes in that once decent journal Rivista, published only because the editor is a creationist who will allow any garbage that is critical of evolution grace its electronic pages. Why, you various opuses sit right alongside crafty essays by creationist Jerry Bergman and a shallow already-disproven speculative hypothesis masquerading as ID-inspired science by Jonny Wells.

I got banned at ARN for exposing Phil Johnson's ties to Christian Reconstructionism. I was allowed back in because the admin thought the moderator that had banned me over-reacted. I was later banned for failing to join in the Nixonization of a recently deceased creationist - banned, in fact, before I was given a chance to 'apologize' to his pals.

As far as having nothing of substance to offer, first, pot meet kettle.

Second - I know it is a futile effort. I tried - repeatedly - as have probably dozens of people, even people that agree with you, to discuss issues, and you are too senile and cranky to discuss back for more than a post or two.

In fact, I documented at EvC your selective use of quotes as evidence (what kind of self-respecting scientist uses 'quotes' from 30, 50, or more year old books as 'evidence' for crying out loud!), your misinterpretation of the one less than 20 year old paper you cited, etc.

What do I get?

You asinine Quote Book quotes and insults.

That is all ANYONE gets.

You are a pathetic former man.I used to get angry at you for your bitter antics.

Now, I just see how miserable and pathetic a person you are, and the fact that there are some who actually think your silly claims have merit says much about their intellectual capacity as well.

Maybe, but the inference from John's posts is that he is banned so often because there is a conspiracy to suppress his ideas. Given a completely free rein, he is able to clearly show the strength of that suggestion.

...and the fact that there are some who actually think your silly claims have merit says much about their intellectual capacity as well.

I am not sure who those "some" would be, apart from Dave Springer, Joe Gallien, and (when it suits him) Sal Cordova.

am not sure who those "some" would be, apart from Dave Springer, Joe Gallien, and (when it suits him) Sal Cordova.

Well, that is the majority of the 'some' I am aware of. There are a couple of stooges on ISCID who happen to (not)think his ideas have some merit, and, of course, Terry "heavier than air gases cannot ever get into the upper atmosphere" Trainor.

Whom, of course, all get the 'I'm not as smart as I have convinced myself I am' award...

A.FoxIf you seriously want to challenge your ban at AtBC, if you will agree to provide a little evidence, I will lobby on your behalf. Or does it suit your vanity to claim martyrdom instead?

Do not ridicule yourself. Everybody knows that John and I are different persons. You know it and all contributors on ATBC know it. Admins there know it as well. (Maybe only Elliot do not know it. But let him be - his thinking is very simple and so no wonder he became convinced darwinist.)

Doppelganger: ...Now, I just see how miserable and pathetic a person you are, and the fact that there are some who actually think your silly claims have merit says much about their intellectual capacity as well.

On the contrary. John's conception is based on the best scientific and philosophical thinking .Or youmust be really very great man and philosopher too if you dismiss all of it. Whats your famous name please?

On the contrary. John's conception is based on the best scientific and philosophical thinking .

I disagree. I have read Davison's essays (let's face it - he stopped engaging in legitimate scientific research and producing 'papers' or 'articles' in the early 1980s) and have attempted to engage him on his claims in several places, and the results have been identical to the paranoid rantings you see on here.I have looked into Davison's claims, and found them to be little more than hero worship, to be premised on outdated information, personal ideology-driven opinion, unwarranted extrapolation, selective quoting, selecvtive acceptance of hero's opinions, and misinterpretation.I documented some of these antics at EvC in which, for example, Grasse in his 1977 book states clearly that he does not believe chromosomal rearrangements produce speciation, one of Davison's main claims.

Or youmust be really very great man and philosopher too if you dismiss all of it. Whats your famous name please?

Alan provided it for you. I do not pretend to be 'famous', nor do I present myself as being anything other than I am. I do not present myself as being an expert in things I am not. I leave such embellishments and ego-boosting to the IDcreationists, who thrive not just on doing so, but on the sickening adulation that their followers heap upon them for doing so.

doppelganger:..., and the results have been identical to the paranoid rantings you see on here.

What I saw and see is darwinistic rantings on ATBC forum. Darwinists used there coarse abuses and they expelled John Davison and me in the end (using the awkward pretext that we are the same person). You can check it. No wonder if John Davison who uses his real name used also his own means to defend himself against anonymous dreck.

I have read some material on insect mimicry - you can check discussion on EvC thread about it. Punnett "outdated" claim cited in Davison Manifesto seems to be so strong that even today darwinists have no conclusive arguments.

I also do not see any flaw in Broom's claim that no mammalian order aroused from Eocene and that evolution at least slowed down.

And Grasse was a prominent scientist. If he continued let say in French tradition and did not accept darwinism like other famous French thinkers Bergson and Chardin it's maybe not enough to dismiss his opinions on the basis that they are "outdated" too (as though Darwin's naturalistic teaching from midst 19. century should be something ultra-modern?).

I leave such embellishments and ego-boosting to the Dcreationists, who thrive not just on doing so, but on the sickening adulation that their followers heap upon them for doing so.

I would say that John Davison's Manifesto is a profound and inspiring work which is much more interesting than most of the contemporary publications on evolution. Surely discussion on Davison's claims and ideas presented in his Manifesto would be more interesting than vivisecting his posts where he just defend himself against abuses. (Like it is more interesting to ponder on Baudelaires poems than on his letters to his landlady.)

..., and the results have been identical to the paranoid rantings you see on here.

What I saw and see is darwinistic rantings on ATBC forum. Darwinists used there [sic] coarse abuses and they expelled John Davison and me in the end (using the awkward pretext that we are the same person). You can check it. No wonder if John Davison who uses his real name used also his own means to defend himself against anonymous dreck.

I'm sorry - what did your expulsion from ATBC have to do with what I wrote? I don't recall seeing Davison on ATBC, then, I don't really participate there much. If, however, his antics there were as they have been at ARN, ISCID, the MSN T.O. group (run by a creationist), EvC, etc., then I am not surprised that he was banned.

I have read some material on insect mimicry - you can check discussion on EvC thread about it. Punnett "outdated" claim cited in Davison Manifesto seems to be so strong that even today darwinists have no conclusive arguments.

There are more than one outdated claims in Davison's tripe.

I also do not see any flaw in Broom's claim that no mammalian order aroused from Eocene and that evolution at least slowed down.

Oh, YOU don't? And what is your famous name and credentials?

And Grasse was a prominent scientist. If he continued let say in French tradition and did not accept darwinism like other famous French thinkers Bergson and Chardin it's maybe not enough to dismiss his opinions on the basis that they are "outdated" too (as though Darwin's naturalistic teaching from midst 19. century should be something ultra-modern?).

True. I dismiss much of Grasse's claims because they were flimsily supported or merely opinions. You may have noticed that Davison only refers to Grasse's book. Have you read it? I have. IN fact, as I mentioned, I found a number of claims that contradict Davison's fantasies in that book. Davison's defense? Well, he doesn't have to agree with EVERYTHING his heros wrote. Sure, just the stuff he thinks props up his fantasy.

Anyway, the thing that struck me most about Grasse's book was how similar it was in tone and content to ReMine's and Sarfati's - arrogant, strident, self-aggrandizing, and weak on direct support for his claims./

I don't care if he was 'famous' or not - his book is littl emore than an ego fest.

I leave such embellishments and ego-boosting to the IDcreationists, who thrive not just on doing so, but on the sickening adulation that their followers heap upon them for doing so.

I would say that John Davison's Manifesto is a profound and inspiring work which is much more interesting than most of the contemporary publications on evolution.

Then I would say that you are quite unfamiliar with any publications on evolution and are extremely gullible.

Surely discussion on Davison's claims and ideas presented in his Manifesto would be more interesting than vivisecting his posts where he just defend himself against abuses. (Like it is more interesting to ponder on Baudelaires poems than on his letters to his landlady.)

It has been done repeatedly. He refuses to discuss his trash. When you ask questions, you get abused and insultred and told to 'read his papers', even if the question is about his papers. If you provide criticism, he launches into his hero-worshipping routine - why, Punnett and Grasse would agree wityh him, and they were 'great men', so you should too! You are just easily taken in by his charm, I suppose.

Davison acts this way no matter what you write - give him time, he will start abusing you, too.

Please note VMartin, how Doppelganger answered questions that you posed. You might find your presence better tolerated on other blogs if you tried answering a few. Whilst the reason given for your ban at AtBC was spurious, you did not conduct youself there in a manner likely to endear yourself to anyone.

doppelganger:There are more than one outdated claims in Davison's tripe.

I focused on Punnet's claim(mentioned in Manifesto) that saltationism is needed to explain butterfly mimicry. There was once discussion on this topic between Poulton and Punnett. No one won. Yet Poulton's darwinistic explanation of some curious phenomens of mimicry requiresstrong belief in Natural selection indeed.

I also do not see any flaw in Broom's claim that no mammalian order aroused from Eocene and that evolution at least slowed down.Oh, YOU don't? And what is your famous name and credentials?

I have never claimed that to believe Broom's or Davison's claim necessitates to be famous, or did I? What I see is this chart of Adaptive Radiation of Mammalian Orders:

This chart - I would say - literally support Broom's claim from 1951 that no mammalian order aroused after Eocene. But the chart is from 2005 and might be"outdated". Might be there are some new information which are up-to-date and contradicts substantially to the chart from 2005 and Broom's claim . Do you have such information?

You are just easily taken in by his charm, I suppose.

Manifesto is a good work. Supported by view of many former and contemporary scientists that mimicry in insect realm cannot be explained away by RM and NS. That behind evolution of mimicry stands other forces (internal factors, Goethian Gestaltung etc...).

Alan, you will be so kind and post my compilation on butterfly mimicry to ATBC? But how would I defend my ideas when I am still banned there under childish pretext to be John? You know, for me it was the hardest period of my life after they banned me from the "demanding scientific forum" full of english teachers.

Do you feel like answering the questions about your academic background and qualifications, yet?

No, you misunderstand, VMartin. If you want to introduce a thread here, and if you email the text to me (alan_foxAThotmail.com - change AT for@) I will enter it as a thread. I will also advertise the thread at AtBC.

Regarding your ban at AtBC, I will, if you wish, make representation to the moderators that the ban be reversed, but I am only an occasional poster there, so I cannot promise that it will happen. I suspect they may consider a probationary period, and would expect you to keep board rules, especially the one forbidding relaying messages from banned users. (John is banned for effectively calling the board owner a Nazi [reference is available]) They have also just tightened up their policy on name-calling and profane language, so, if they decide to reinstate your membership, you should find people a little more polite.

So, you have no scientific background. Do you think you should, perhaps, then learn a little about the theory of evolution before dismissing it so glibly?

As you see the mean desire with darwinism obsessed is this one - to hold all opponents locked in asylum. Something communists did in reality with disidents. No wonder - communism and darwinism are the same naturalistic cesspool from the midst 19 century. Their followers believe that life is a pure chance and consider ancient fish to be their predecessor.

Neverthenless Alan Fox seems to be posessed also with abusing John Davison (btw. as hypocrite he never do this in his dying blog that John revived.)

How am I a hypocrite, VMartin? John is the one who barged in to Larry Moran's blog with his unchanging tirades against all and sundry. If you think this is normal behaviour for an 80 year old ex biology (associate) professor, you must be a little deluded yourself.

All good arguments, VMartin. I am beginning to see the flaws in common descent, myself, now.

So does the sarcasm indicate that you have some scientific education and/or qualifications? You only seem to be aware of some parody of evolutionary theory. Do you have some kind of religious allergy to the idea that you share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? John does not dispute common descent as far as I am aware, BTW.

Alan, first of all you should enable John to post here. It's really weird that he cannot post comments to his own article, dont' you think? I don't know how you manage to block him - do you use cookies?

As to the AtBC I was rejected under pretext I am John. You know very well that it is a lie (and admins there know it as well). So why should I prove you and your cronies there I am not John? You have done it deliberately, so I do not underestand what is this your masquarade about "revoking the ban" all about.

V:I also do not see any flaw in Broom's claim that no mammalian order aroused from Eocene and that evolution at least slowed down.

dop:Oh, YOU don't? And what is your famous name and credentials?

V:I have never claimed that to believe Broom's or Davison's claim necessitates to be famous, or did I?

It is a shame that you cannot recognize a parapherase of your own words used against you. Allow me to remind you what YOU wrote to me:

"Or you must be really very great man and philosopher too if you dismiss all of it. Whats your famous name please?"

as if only if I were 'famous' could I dare disagree wtih crazy John...

What I see is this chart of Adaptive Radiation of Mammalian Orders:...This chart - I would say - literally support Broom's claim from 1951 that no mammalian order aroused after Eocene. But the chart is from 2005 and might be"outdated". Might be there are some new information which are up-to-date and contradicts substantially to the chart from 2005 and Broom's claim . Do you have such information?

What, exactly, does that 'prove'? There are many changes that occur during that period - note how the 'lines' get thicker and thinner. Note also that naming things and classifying things is a subjective endeavor. By the way - that very chart shows the emergence of a whole new order in the Oligocene.And also by the way - that whole chart is re: Orders, and thus when the lines get thicker, that means that there are more groups below the level of Order - which means that there are 'new' Families and thus new genera.You have thus just provided a data point for the old Gould adage - 'When you know a little science, the claims of creationists (or in this case, anti-Darwinian crackpots) can seem to make sense. When you know a lot of science, you can see how ridiculous their claims really are.'

dop:You are just easily taken in by his charm, I suppose.

V:Manifesto is a good work.

To the layman with a predicpositon to dismiss legitimate "pro-evolution" science, I suppose.

Supported by view of many former and contemporary scientists that mimicry in insect realm cannot be explained away by RM and NS. That behind evolution of mimicry stands other forces (internal factors, Goethian Gestaltung etc...).

So you are focusing on a single aspect of'Manifesto' and declaring the whole thing 'good.' Sorry, I looked at is in termsof the legitimacyof his citations and conclusions and found it severely wanting.

Even if I admit that "mammalian Order" is a human invention the fact will remain. We can focus our attention if you like on mammalian families instead. It's known - if you please will make some preliminary check on internet - that mammalian families diversity is nowadays only shadow of the former mammalian families diversity in Eocene (maybe carnivora and rodentia has the same diversity). Btw. all nowadays mammalian body plans can be traced down to Eocene. What would you like to discuss - diversity of artiodactyla or perisodactyla in Eocene and now?

Certainly you should not discuss issue using the chart and your feelings but you should use instead modern researches on the issue from prominenmt scientist like Gingerich etc.

Anyway it's a pity we are in this dying forum where nobody is going by and where John seems to be banned.

V:Even if I admit that "mammalian Order" is a human invention the fact will remain. We can focus our attention if you like on mammalian families instead. It's known - if you please will make some preliminary check on internet - that mammalian families diversity is nowadays only shadow of the former mammalian families diversity in Eocene (maybe carnivora and rodentia has the same diversity). Btw. all nowadays mammalian body plans can be traced down to Eocene. What would you like to discuss - diversity of artiodactyla or perisodactyla in Eocene and now?

I would like to discuss the fact that you are now trying tio change the subject. YOU linked to a diagram that you claim supports one of crazy John's Manifesto claims. You apparently did not understand how to interpret it. I point out that it actually indicates a problem for crazy John's claim. Now you tell me to look to the internet for better souces.

Here is an idea - why don't YOU only refer to things that you actually understand. Only link to web sites that actually might support your position. That way, when/if I respond to it, you will not be able to simply blow off my response by referring to somethign else.

I see no problem with the fact that "new" diversity appears to be arising at a decrasing rate. We have a limited window of opportunity to observe these things. What will such a diagram look like 1,000,000 years form now? Who knows. But since taxonomy is subjective, it might look totally different.

Certainly you should not discuss issue using the chart and your feelings but you should use instead modern researches on the issue from prominenmt scientist like Gingerich etc.

I discussed the issue by looking at the chart YOU supplied, which I assume YOU thought sufficiently informative to present as supporting your positon. I am sorry it does not do so, but don't try to blame me for the fact that you misinterpreted it.

Anyway it's a pity we are in this dying forum where nobody is going by and where John seems to be banned.

Crazy John is not banned, as has been explained to you repeatedly. Most likely he just forgot his password, as he has done on several occasions on several websites.

If you are going to ignore the questions I ask of you and/or the issues I discuss in response to questions/issues you have brought up in favor of producing a new series fo questions/concwerns with each reply, I will not waste my time engaging you. Doing that is a sign of your inability to deal with the issues you bring up in the first place.

So stop bringing up new issues each time while ignoring the old or I'm done with you.

I have no time discuss with you the issue. You are too lazy to find out any sources that even can support your phantasies. You are waiting for me only to ridicule everything. You are not the right man. This issue I discussed more than 3 months in our forum with a Czech darwinists into depth.

First he claimed that differences of perissodactyla and artiodactyla is nowadays greater than in Eocene etc.. and at last he somehow admitted that diversities of mammalian families is nowadays lesser.

Some citation of my claims you can find at ATbC where they were ignored.

But might be I will sometimes open thread on the issue at EvC. Than you can present your ignorant darwinistic haughtiness openly.

I have no time discuss with you the issue. You are too lazy to find out any sources that even can support your phantasies.

I have made no claims TO support at this time. I have been responding to YOUR claims. YOU are the one that presented a diagram that you apparently misinterpreted as supporting crazy John. At best, it is ambiguous on the issue.But if you feel the need to insult me for not doing something there is no need fo rme to do, well you go right ahead. That is what you people do.

First he claimed that differences of perissodactyla and artiodactyla is nowadays greater than in Eocene etc.. and at last he somehow admitted that diversities of mammalian families is nowadays lesser.

Yeah, great, therefore.. what, exactly?

Some citation of my claims you can find at ATbC where they were ignored.

But might be I will sometimes open thread on the issue at EvC. Than you can present your ignorant darwinistic haughtiness openly.

Great. And you can then link to irrelevant diagrams that you cannot properly interpret and get all snooty and condescending when I point out that fact.

By the way - I read some of your posts on EvC and you have not been faring very well over there, either. It appears you have been reduced to kibitzing with the resident hypermanic nut case.

O.K.Please check statistics from John Day Fossil Beds National Monument which seems to have one of the best preserved continuum of mammalian fossils>:

www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf

I don't have installed acrobat reader so I do not see graphs but you should be able see that maximum diversity quote:

The period of 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Forma-tion) seems to harbor the greatest diversity inknown fossils of families and genera.

Broom's explanation was that evolution slowed down.

Some other internet surfing quotation I have made before elsewhere:"The great diversity of Holarctic primates during the Eocene indicates that at least 90% of modern diversity would already have been reached by the Middle Eocene."

"A number of mammal orders show peaks of family diversity around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, such as Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla and Proboscidea."

berkeley.edu:"Perissodactyls were once much morediverse" ..

"Only seventeen species of perissodactyls remain on the Earth today, a shadow of the group's former glory".

Broom also had a reputation for purposely producing outrageous claims in order to spark debate and discussion. His depiction of early man as a brutish canibalistic troglodyte is one example (apparently, he did not believe such a thing himself, he just wanted to get people fired-up and talking).